Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 63 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 3
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Mar 23, 2017, 10:20am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Ah, if only CBS started collaborating with the guys who do fan projects instead of gunning them down with lawsuits and "guidelines"... then we might actually have some incredibly good new Trek to watch.

Oh well... at least Discovery is going to have an amazing cast. Finally, one thing they've done right.

Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 1:14am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"Never considered the possibility that Isaacs is playing Garth and "Captain Lorca" is just an alias. That would be cool! (It would also explain certain lawsuits filed by CBS.) "

It is very unlikely that CBS had any kind of specific storyline planned, at the time they started moving against Alec and Axanar.

So IF Lorca is Garth (and that's a pretty big IF) that would mean that CBS pretty much stolen Alec's idea. Don't know about you, but I - personally - won't be impressed by such a turn of events at all.


Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Feb 23, 2017, 10:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Brandon
"Truth is, all - CBS access, Klingons, time period, etc. - will be forgiven if they can just make a good show."

It is true that none of these "sins" are unforgivable. But if CBS knew what they were doing, they wouldn't have committed them in the first place.

I mean... Why would any person who knows what Trek is supposed to be all about, choose to go back to the 23rd century and then piss all over the established continuity?



Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Feb 12, 2017, 5:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

I knew I should have phrased that more carefully, so let me try again:

GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT CBS, there couldn't have been any other reason for them to set 'Discovery' in the 2250's, other than rebooting TOS.

Any other plan would require them to deal with the delicate issue of bringing the aesthetics of "The Cage" and the TOS ship interiors up to speed with modern production values.

This could be incredible if done right, but can you really see CBS going this route? These are the same guys who whined, just a few months ago, that "sci fi can't do well on TV". You think they'll even consider using a 50-year-old design as the basis of their stream service's flagship show?

Ain't gonna happen. It was obvious from the very beginning that CBS was going to play it safe in this respect. And when we combine "play it safe" with a show set in the 2250's, there's really only one conclusion that can be reached...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Feb 12, 2017, 2:54pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"Those are Klingons?" (Bashir)

But seriously, is there any reason to believe these aliens are supposed to be Klingons? So far we only have the word of this Andrew McKay dude, of whom we've never heard of before.

Although... If these guys really *do* turn out to be Klingons, it wouldn't surprise me too much. I've already said, months ago, that setting the new series in the 2250's can only mean one thing: They are planning to rebooting TOS. There can't - really - be any other reason for setting "Discovery" in this era.

And the last official teaser confirmed this, with the Enterprise-like uniforms and the glimpses we got of the computer displays on the ship.

So really, is it any surprise that they plan to reimagine the Star Trek races as well? Since they're already changing everything else, who not?


Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Feb 2, 2017, 10:14am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Completely agree with you, Robert.

My personal top episodes would also contain "Distant Origins", "Living Witness", "Before and After", "Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy" (TUVOK! Activate the photonic cannon! XD)

When Voyager was good it was *very* good, even if - as a whole - it is my least favorite series (mostly because it tended to endlessly drag on in its later seasons).
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Feb 1, 2017, 9:13am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Well, the teaser did manage to get me excited while I was watching it, but then it ended and I realized they didn't really tell us anything about Discovery - AGAIN.

Except the uniforms. I guess it is now 100% confirmed that the starfleet uniforms of Discovery will be *nothing* like those seen in "The Cage" (and suspiciously similar to the uniforms seen on "Enterprise") which again confirms my earlier suspicions that Discovery is going to be a sneaky reboot of the 23rd century.

Hate to say "I told you so", but... I told you so.








Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 3:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

What I'd really like to see is a 25th century Federation that learned from its past mistakes. A Federation that learned the needed lessons from the Dominion Wars without sacrificing its lofty ideals. A Federation that is capable of upholding the highest moral standards even when under a deadly outside threat.

Most of TNG pretty much glossed over this point. Its easy to take the high ground when you're the strongest guy in the neighborhood. Then came the Borg, where the "solution" involved Admirals ordering despicible things to be done, Picard violating those orders, and everything turning okay in the end due to blind luck.

DS9, on the other hand, showed us a Federation which was completely inequipped to deal with these kinds of moral challanges (you know your "utopia" is in trouble when the day is saved by a shady secret organization within your ranks attempting genocide...)

So if the Federation has any hope of reclaiming its utopian status the 25th century, it must wrestle with some very difficult questions. I'd like to see Section 31 exposed out in the open, and Starfleet finding less sinister ways to deal with such difficult situtations. I'd also like to see the Federation realizing that the 24th century interpertation of the Prime Directive ("backwards planet should be left to die") is stupid and morally wrong. In later seasons, maybe, give us a bit of payoff for Q's final promise to Picard in "All Good Things..." ("see you... out there").

And as long as we're dreaming: Let's set this new show on the Enterprise-J, with humans and Xindi working together (as predicted by Daniels in "Enterprise" for this very time frame). Let's end a season with the famed "Battle of Procyon V" against the Sphere Builders, and show how Federation succesfully upholds its moral code in the face of a formidable enemy.

This is the kind of Star Trek I'd love to see in our dangerous times. Some people say that the 21st century can't do "optimistic science fiction" any more, but they seem to forget that TOS was aired when the entire world was on the brink of nuclear annihilation. Having Sulu and Chekov on the bridge of the NCC1701 (no bloody A,B,C or D) was a wonderful antidote to the mass paranoia of the times, and the world is desperately in need for such antidote today as well.

Of-course, niether CBS nor any other mega-corperation will ever air such a thing. They'll never even consider to green-light such a concept. But a man can dream...

Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 12:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"I think everybody pretty much thinks this. Is anybody here happy when this is taking place?"

Depends on the quality of the writers and their ability to think out of the box (as well as the network's ability to ALLOW them to think out of the box).

I think that mid-23rd century is THE most challenging period of Trek history to write a TV show for. Its a challange of continuity and a challange of asthetics (do you really think CBS is brave enough to bring back the 1960's designs to the flag show of their streaming service?)

Make no mistake: In the hands of an excellent team of writers and designers with a genuine love for Trek, the 2250's could lead to the most wonderful Trek series that ever existed. But in the hands of any lesser production team, it will probably end up as an awful convoluted mess.

Which is why - I think - most Trekkies prefer the 25th century. It may not have the same potential for greatness, but it certainly is less risky.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 7:36am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

It's much easier to do with Dr. Who than with Star Trek, because Whovians don't expect the kind of in-universe continuity that Trekkies do.

In Trek you can't really "start anew", unless you do a complete reboot. TNG was able to do what it did not because it "started anew" but because TOS never reached its full potential with its 3 seasons and impossible budget and personel constraints (not to mention the compromises that were forced by NBC at the time).

So setting a new series in the 25th century isn't really going to solve the problem. As Alex aptly said: "another galaxy or a different quadrant will not automatically fix the lack of vision".

But really, we're quibbling about the unimportant stuff here. The truth is that a good team of writers would be able to write compelling stories in ANY setting.





Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 12:41pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

I hear ya.

The problem is that 50 years of continuity baggage and fan expectations made the Star Trek universe old and tired. The Trek-universe is simply too well-known for us to be awed by stories set within its realm. What can we do? It is very difficult to tell awe-inspiring stories on a 6th spinoff of a half-century old franchise, especially after a few decades of establishing the galaxy as being a place with very few surprises left in store.

Each post-TNG series dealt with this problem in a different way, and to varying levels of success. DS9 focused on "future history" and politics instead of exploration (which IMO provided a much richer and more realistic background to the Roddenberry vision). VOY tried to tell the crew-centered story of a mixed crew stranded far away from home with limited resources (an excellent premise which was unfortunately forgotten after half-a-dozen episodes). ENT returned the sense-of-wonder to the crew, which was (at times) inspiring to watch even though the stuff they encountered was old hat to the viewers.

All of these were decent sci fi shows, in my view.

But if we're serious about recapturing the awe and wonder of TOS/TNG then it would probably be better to attempt it in a brand new universe with new rules.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 7:54pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@ Alex

Honestly, the "boldly go" thing has less to do with the era in which the series is set, and more to do with the stories the writers choose to tell. Deep Space 9 is an excellent example of how to shake up the premise, even though it was set in the exact same era as TNG. And "Enterprise" is an example of both doing this right and doing it wrong: Too many episodes (especially in the first two seasons) were basically TNG episodes... but when the writers actually took the time and effort to write stories that are unique to the prequel premise, it usually payed off.

And there are plenty of good and original stories to tell in the TOS era too. There's an entire universe out there, and not everything must happen on a ship named "Enterprise".

It should also be noted that "Discovery" does strive to be different: It will have a main character and it won't be the captain. There will be recurring characters from other ships (Michelle Yeoh and the 3 klingons). There's little danger that "Discovery" will be a TNG (or TOS) clone.

So the era is not the main problem here. What *is* a problem, is that the production staff seem to have no idea what they're doing or where the project is going. The series was announced over a year ago, yet none of the teasers we've been given show any coherent vision. Again and again we get promos which tell us absolutely nothing regarding the setting or the story, and now we don't even have a launch date.

I kinda wonder what show we would have gotten had Fuller stayed onboard. I'm pretty sure he had a very clear vision for the show (and I have a hunch that disagreements regarding this vision were the real reason he bailed out.




Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Jan 20, 2017, 5:49am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"The last thing I want STD.. (yeah, it's STD because it sounds awful and it lingers on and on in production hell haha).. the last thing I want my awesome Trek to do is friggin' flat out DIE from it."

Trek won't "die". Nothing can take the 700+ "classic" episodes (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT) from us.

Recently I began a rewatch of TOS with my wife, and you know something? Even after 50 years, it remains a classic. And CBS can't take the already existing legacy from us.

"Holy shit, guys. Do they realize how many people would jump at the chance to HANDLE THIS RIGHT?"

Yeah. Unfortunately, this cannot be done legally without CBS' approval (which they'll never give).

Maybe it's time to start a new sci fi universe. Create an alternative that fills the niche that the official "Trek" no longer fills. The brand "Star Trek" has been diluted in the past decade or so, anyway.

Oh, and it will be hilarious if Paramount or CBS try to sue somebody for doing this. I'd love to see them trying to convince a jury that a thoughtful quality show is "too similar" to the crap they're producing...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 1:35am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

They've already shelled out tons of $$$ into pre-production of this series, so I very much doubt they'll cancel it.

But you're right about one thing: It is obvious that CBS has no idea what they are doing. I also have the sinking feeling that the only reason they chose to do "Discovery" is the Axanar fiasco. You think it's a coincidence, that both shows are set at precisely the same time period? Nobody in their right minds would set a 2010's TV show in Star Trek's 2250's (Say what you will about "Enterprise", a 100+ year prequel makes much more sense than forcing yourself to choose between '60s asthetics and violating continuity in every episode).

So it isn't like CBS launched this project because they actually have a story to tell. It was a kneejerk reaction which they are now stuck with, and the end product will probably look that way too.

TL;DR: Series or no series, CBS is - indeed - screwing up the franchise and on the 50-year anniversary no less.






Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Dec 5, 2016, 8:20pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"Then they better hop to it with the casting unless they're going the 'Remember Me' route where only 3 people pilot a starship around the Alpha Quadrant :D"

2 people, not 3. Michelle Yeoh isn't playing a crewmember of the Discovery.

But that's okay. As Picard said, "we've never needed a crew before" :D
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 23, 2016, 4:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Robert

"I agree with you. The ploy is to make you think that you need them for your next Trek fix more than they need your money. But it might be closer to true than it was in the past. 5 years ago failing in the domestic market was instant death. It's less true now than it used to be. "

That may well be.

However, American or not, they still need people to watch the show. The words "foreign market" are not a magic phrase that allows the producers to ignore the basic rules of the television industry. And no sane business-person is going to shell out tens of millions of dollars on a series with an uncertain future.

So saying things like "we don't need the domestic market" at this early point in time is incredibly cocky. Especially when their actions don't match their words: This entire "All Access" fiasco is a classic example of what happens when people are blinded by greed. The very fact that CBS chose this route, proves that they care so much about domestic profits, it caused them to lose their heads.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 8:46pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@ Yanks

"I think some missed Moonves' (sp) statement earlier regarding this show. The foreign market pays for the show. Anything else they get from us Americans is frosting on the cake"

We didn't "miss" it. We recognized it as a marketing ploy which has little bearing on reality and ignored it.

How do I know that? Because:

1. It doesn't make any business sense. There's simply no way that the foreign markets would shell this kind of money on a series which hasn't even been produced yet. Especially a series with such an uncertain future that even the die-hard fans of the franchise are skeptical about.

2. Saying "We really don't need your money" is the oldest marketing ploy in the book. It's a way to convince you, as a customer, that your money doesn't matter. Makes it easier for you to open your wallet and pay up, because - after all - the money isn't important... It's one of the first tricks that all salesmen learn.

Besides, if they don't need our money, why don't they air the show for free? It's funny how it is always the end costumer who needs to "lighten up, it's only 30 bucks"... Can you imagine Mr. Moonves "lightening up" in this respect? In case you've forgotten, this is the guy who declared war on the entire fan film community just to show his muscles. You can be sure that he won't lighten up over a single penny, so why should we?

"$30 bucks folks. Suck it up. It's less than a frakin tank of gas."

How it compares to "a tank of gas" is irelevant.

For $30 bucks I could buy 2 seasons of TNG on DVD. That's 52 episodes which I then OWN and can PLAY WHENEVER I LIKE.

And while I'm not very well versed in the prices of other streaming services, I'm pretty sure (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that CBS All-Access is far more expensive than Netflix (for example).

So no, a price of $30 isn't reasonable at all. It seems that the guys at CBS think that they can charge any price because we Trekkies are like drug addicts who will pay anything for a fix.

And it is our job, as fans, to stand our ground and make clear that this isn't the case. Yes, we love Star Trek. But no, this doesn't mean we're going to pay 30 bucks to watch something that the rest of the world gets for 1/5 of that price. Nor does it mean that we will blindly support a lousy product (*cough* JJ-Trek *cough*) just because it has the "Star Trek" label on it.

"It seems to me that he (CBS) has found a way to give us pretty much unlimited trek without having to ever worry about gaining 8-10 million viewers a week on a entertainment medium that will probably be going away soon. "

You can't sustain a show without viewership. At least not if you want to make any money from it.

This fact doesn't change just because the medium is different. It may change the details of what kind of viewership is needed for the show to survive, but the basic principles remain the same: No viewers, no show.

So if we accept the unlikely claim that the foreign market "already payed" for the first season, the simple fact is that nobody is going to buy additional seasons of a show that performed poorly.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 4:03pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

"I don't know how far along the show is so I don't know what viable alternatives CBS has - if any. What I do know is that the poisoning of the Trek fanbase began when their legitimate right to the IP overstepped into the fanbase that truly love the franchise. There's guidelines for fanfiction now. Fanfic - the vast majority of which never sought monetary gain and hurt no one. If anything it was the lifeblood and spirit that keeps Trek's vision alive. "

Yeah, but even that isn't the part which antagonizes me the most.

The worst thing is how CBS lied through their teeth and claimed they support fan films while simultanously bringing down the axe. The beginning of their "fan film guidelines" document was full with lofty words to this effect. It was so hypocritical and so transparent that it's sickening.

Do they think we are stupid or what?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 3:37pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@Brandon:

"www.parentherald.com/articles/86005/20161117/star-trek-discovery-air-date-n ews-expect-nudity-swearing-streaming.htm

And now, apparently, we can expect nudity and swearing in our Star Trek.

And you thought DS9/VOY/ENT were trying to be edgy.

Something tells me this is why Bryan Fuller left as showrunner."

To be fair, Fuller himself said - quite a while ago - that swearing will be a thing on "Discovery". He also said that they'll use swear words sparsely (which can actually be a good thing) and not just for vulgarity's sake.

He also said that Discovery will be "darker" (which is weird, given the optimistic name of the series).

OSo it could be that the site you've given was assuming things based on these facts (which are nothing new).

" Is Les Moonves just TRYING to tank Trek? "

That thought *had* crossed my mind... but what reason could CBS possibly have for doing this?

I think it is far more likely that the guys high up are your typical short-sighted managers who don't understand what makes Star Trek special, nor do they "get" the mentality of the fans of the franchise.

And this problem isn't exactly new, either, as the 7-of-9 catsuit tells us...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 9:10am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Oh, and they (CBS) also sued the guy who made the Tricoder App, even though their contract with Roddenberry explicilty said that if a person ever creates a functional tricorder he'll have the right to call it by that name.

Apperantly these guys are not only ruthless and greedy, but also immensely dense. We have a functional futuristic device which millions of fans are happily willing to associate with CBS' show. What better promotion could there be for the Star Trek franchise?

But no. We're not allowed to call it a "Tricorder". We, the fans, have to go against are natural instincts and call it something else. It's absurd.

Well... I just can't wait until NASA invents the "FTL bubble drive" and scientists at MIT develop the first "matter teleport device". Of-course we all know what the real names of these things is, but don't tell anyone. It's illegal.

Sheesh...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Nov 11, 2016, 8:46am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Well, the guys of Axanar share the blame in what happened, in my opinion.

This Peters dude pretty much waved a huge red flag at CBS and taunted them "you think your tough? huh? huh? I'm going to rip off your IP and make tons of money out of it. Let's see if your tough enough to do something about it"

So CBS bit the bait, went breserk and declared war on the entire fan fiction community. And while they didn't really have to do that, it was Peters who insisted on poking a finger in the eye of that sleeping dragon.

There's plenty of blame to go around in that story.

Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 9, 2016, 9:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

The "whatever reason" is those stupid "fan fiction guidelines" that CBS published a few months ago, which rendered the original concept of "Star Trek: Renegades" illegal. The Renegades team had no choice but to delete all the Star Trek references from their product, or be sued.

So now we have series about the "Confederation" and "The Dirty Dozen" because Star Trek fans are no longer allowed to use words like "The Federation" or "The Maquis" in their fan films.

Thank you very much, CBS. If you think we're going to subscribe to your "all-access" thing after that dick move, think again.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Wed, Nov 2, 2016, 6:21pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@ methane

"t's strange that you're attacking the CBS service and then saying this. I think most people have concluded that the old TV model is fading away. You can say that it will "die", but you could also say that it's simply evolving. CBS streaming is anticipating that change"

Evolution and change can be a good thing.

However, when the "evolution" is towards models that give people less and less for more and more, then we have a problem. And if this "problem" becomes severe enough, the costumers will stop paying.


"Youtube recently added a paid subscription service"

So? There's nothing new in the situation of having pay-for TV alongside free TV, and there's nothing wrong with it either. It has been that way since the 1940's at the very least.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 5:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@ Chrome

"Not to disrespect Fuller, because he seems to have a big following here, but is it really so bad someone else is writing the shows now?"

All in all, no.

But when "Fuller & Kurtzman" becomes "Kurtzman", we have reason to be worried...
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 4:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

@methane
"Those of you who think this will be some kind of financial disaster are off base. CBS already announced to shareholders that money from international sales of the show have exceeded the costs to make the show."

The fact that they are making money in other ways, does not change the fact that putting the show on their streaming service is a stupid decision.


"For all of you unhappy that this show isn't bundled into some other service (like Netflix), you're going to have to get used to it. People have been complaining for years that having different networks bundled in their cable bills was unfair, saying 'a la carte' would be better. We're just seeing the start of what a true unbundled environment will look like. We will have more and more services, with fewer and fewer shows on any one service."

It certainly looks like it. But all it proves is that the entire industry has gone mad.

What you're forgetting in your analysis, is the reaction of the public. They will - as you said yourself - "get used to it". They will get used to the fact that the TV shows are getting worse, more expensive, and more of a headache to find.

And they will also get used to the fact that indie companies are providing more quality content than the networks. There are already channels on youtube which are far better than anything shown on mainstream TV.

The end result? TV as we know it will simply die, due to lack of interest. It will go down the way of the printed newspaper. It will probably take decades for this to pan out, but it *will* happen.

Funny thing is that Star Trek actually predicted this. Remember Data saying that TV ceased to be a form of Entertainment by 2040? This prediction certainly seems realistic now.

Next ►Page 1 of 3
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.